Robert Spencer Apr 16, 2014 at
10:50am
“A new video shows what looks like the largest and most
dangerous gathering of al Qaeda in years. And the CIA and the Pentagon either
didn’t know about it or couldn’t get a drone there in time to strike.” Maybe
they were too busy engaging in “outreach” with Muslim groups linked to Hamas
and the Muslim Brotherhood, and too busy reassuring Muslim communities in the
U.S. of their benign intentions, to pay any attention to this. “Unsettling
video shows large al Qaeda meeting in Yemen,” by Barbara Starr for CNN, April 16 (thanks to all who sent this in): Washington
(CNN) — A new video shows what looks like the largest and most dangerous
gathering of al Qaeda in years. And the CIA and the Pentagon either didn’t know
about it or couldn’t get a drone there in time to strike. U.S. officials won’t
comment on that, but every frame of the video is now being analyzed by the
United States. In the middle of the clip, the man known as al Qaeda’s crown
prince, Nasir al-Wuhayshi, appears brazenly out in the open, greeting followers
in Yemen. Al-Wuhayshi, the No. 2 leader of al Qaeda globally and the head of al
Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, has said he wants to attack the United States.
But in the video, he looks unconcerned that he could be hit by an American
drone. The video started appearing on jihadist websites recently, drawing the
attention of U.S. officials and global terrorism experts. U.S. officials say
they believe it’s authentic….The video shows al-Wuhayshi addressing more than
100 fighters somewhere within Yemen, Cruickshank said, a restive nation on the
southwestern portion of the Arabian Peninsula. The al Qaeda leader, he said, is
“taking a big risk in doing this.” But he doesn’t mince words about his
mission. In a speech to the group, al-Wuhayshi makes it clear that he’s going
after the United States, saying “We must eliminate the cross. … The bearer of
the cross is America!” U.S. officials believe the highly produced video is
recent. With some fighters faces blurred, there is worry it signals a new round
of plotting….
An “Abrahamic Faith”
I recently saw a description of Christianity as an
“Abrahamic Faith” along with Judaism and Islam. I don’t view Christianity as an
Abrahamic faith. This is only an attempt at religious unity with Judaism and
Islam. Outside of the Torah, Abraham is barely mentioned in the Old Testament.
The Bible declares that the fullness of the Godhead is manifested in Jesus
Christ-not Abraham. If we are going to go back to a prophet that all these three
monotheistic religion revere, why not Noah, Moses or Enoch? Abraham’s
understanding of God was limited. Now, Abraham is discussed in the New
Testament for two reasons-soterology (the theology of Salvation) and the issue
of non-Jews coming to faith in Jesus. Abraham became important to Paul because
Abraham was before the giving of the Law of Moses-the Torah-and he technically
wasn’t Jewish. Therefore, for Paul, Abraham was an example of salvation apart
from Judaism and the Law. Abraham is used by Islam to give legitimacy to their
religion. Our religion is based upon God and Christ Jesus-not Abraham. We don’t
even know exactly when Abraham lived right now. I take issue with Christianity
being called an “Abrahamic” religion. It is an attempt to water down faith
distinctions and is an attempt to remove our focus from Christ, the Son of God,
to a mere prophet-who had a rudimentary and partial revelation of God.
The Global War on
Christians
It is
important for Christians to keep abreast of persecution of Christians around
the world. I strongly recommend the book “Crucified Again” by Raymond Ibrahim.
Another book is “The Global War on Christians” by John L. Allen, Jr. Phillip
Jenkins likes the book because it doesn’t excessively focus on the issue of
Islamic persecution of Christians. I think it is folly to NOT look at the issue
of Islamic persecution of Christians and this is why I recommend the book by
Raymond Ibrahim.
The Jewish Autonomous Oblast
The
Jewish Autonomous Oblast is a federal subject of Russia situated in the Russian
Far East, bordering with Khabarovsk Krai and Amur Oblast of Russia and
Heilongjiang province of China. It is also referred to as "Yevrey"
and "Birobidzhan". It is 13,900 sq miles (36,000 km²).
Well, if the Jews of Russia have an autonomous region-I wonder why Russia’s
Assyrians don’t try to organize one as well?
Ayaan Hirsi Ali (from Fox
News and Christian Post)
The Jewish-sponsored school
Brandeis University in Waltham, Mass., announced Tuesday that it would withdraw
Ayaan Hirsi Ali from a list of five individuals for whom it had intended to
confer an honorary doctorate degree during its May commencement ceremony. The school
announced that it would be rescinding the honor after it realized that
"certain of her past statements are inconsistent with Brandeis
University's core values." It also noted that the university's president,
Frederick M. Lawrence, had discussed the decision with Hirsi Ali and that she
"is welcome to join us on campus in the future to engage in a
dialogue." The New York Times
noted that while universities may frequently host speakers with
controversial opinions, "awarding an honorary degree ... is more akin to
affirming the body of a recipient's work." In the eight days since Brandeis
first announced its list of honorary degree recipients, one student created an online petition, which
garnered more than 6,000 signatures demanding the school reverse course. Characterizing
her views as "extreme Islamophobic" and "hate speech," the
student argued that petitioners were not "belittling the severity of the
issues that she raises" but feel that her comments violate the mission of
a school "which prides itself on social justice." "She has her
very real personal story, she has her views, and she's free to say what she'd
like to say," Maya Berry, executive director of the Arab American
Institute, an advocacy group, told the New York Times. "But for an
institution like Brandeis to choose to honor someone like this is really
disappointing." Originally born in Somalia before she immigrated to the
Netherlands, the agnostic Hirsi Ali's has frequently and caustically
characterized her family's faith, noting that as a girl she forcibly underwent
female circumcision and fought her family's efforts to marry her to a man
against her wishes. A fellow at the
right-of-center American Enterprise Institute, in her 2009 memoir Infidel, Hirsi Ali
blamed her former faith for perpetuating misogyny. "Many well-meaning
Dutch people have told me in all earnestness that nothing in Islamic culture
incites abuse of women, that this is just a terrible misunderstanding. Men all
over the world beat their women, I am constantly informed," wrote the
former Dutch politician. "In reality, these Westerners are the ones who
misunderstand Islam. The Koran mandates these punishments. It gives a
legitimate basis for abuse, so that the perpetrators feel no shame and are not
hounded by their conscience of their community. I wanted my art exhibit to make
it difficult for people to look away from this problem. I wanted secular,
non-Muslim people to stop kidding themselves that 'Islam is peace and
tolerance.'" Hirsi Ali has also described Islam as a "mental
cage." "At first, when you open the door, the caged bird stays
inside: it is frightened. It has internalized its imprisonment. It takes time
for bird to escape, even after someone has opened the doors to its cage." In
2004, Hirsi Ali, who is also a staunch supporter of women's rights, worked with
the-late Theo van Gogh on "Submission." The short film showed verses
of the Quran on a woman's naked body, and shortly after its release van Gogh
was found murdered in Amsterdam with a note that included a death threat to
Hirsi Ali.
Ali, a member of the Dutch
Parliament from 2003 to 2006, has been quoted as making comments critical of
Islam. That includes a 2007 interview with Reason Magazine in which she said of
the religion, "Once it's defeated,
it can mutate into something peaceful. It's very difficult to even talk about
peace now. They're not interested in peace. I think that we are at war with
Islam. And there's no middle ground in wars." Ali was raised in a
strict Muslim family, but after surviving a civil war, genital mutilation,
beatings and an arranged marriage, she renounced the faith in her 30s. She has
not commented publicly on the issue of the honorary degree. In 2007, Ali helped establish the AHA
Foundation, which works to protect and defend the rights of women in the West
from oppression justified by religion and culture, according to its website.
The foundation also strives to protect basic rights and freedoms of women and
girls. This includes control of their own bodies, access to an education and
the ability to work outside the home and control their own income, the website
says. More than 85 of about 350 faculty members at Brandeis signed a letter
asking for Ali to be removed from the list of honorary degree recipients. And
an online petition created Monday by students at the school of 5,800 had
gathered thousands of signatures from inside and outside the university as of
Tuesday afternoon.
Journalists’ guide to Islam called cave-in to
political correctness by Pierre Chariamonte, Fox News, April 12, 2014
A "how-to" guide
published by a prominent journalism school to help reporters covering
Islam-related issues is under fire from critics who say it sacrifices the First
Amendment to political correctness. "Islam for Journalists,” an online
guide from Washington State University, says coverage of the Muslim world can
be fair, yet inoffensive without compromising journalistic principles. Yet it
pointedly condemns publication of images of Muhammed, an act which is forbidden
by the Koran, and seems to equate it with violence carried out in the name of
Islam. “Across the Muslim world
extremists are wielding their swords with grisly effect, but the pen…can be
just as lethal,” Lawrence Pintak, dean of the school's Edward R. Murrow College
of Communication, wrote in the introduction to the guide. “Many Muslim
journalists simply couldn’t understand why Western news organizations would
republish the offensive images just because [of a legal right]. Journalism is
not supposed to be a weapon [it is meant] to inform, not inflame,” Pintak
wrote. The guide has been endorsed by the Council on American-Islamic
Relations, a group with ties to extremists in the Middle East. In 2005, the
Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published two editorial cartoons depicting the
Islamic prophet, calling the effort an attempt to contribute to the debate
about criticism of Islam and self-censorship. Predictably, Muslim groups in
Denmark complained and protests took place around the world, including violent
demonstrations in some Muslim countries. Jutte Klausen, a professor at Brandeis
University, wrote the book “The Cartoons that Shook the World” about the
events, only to see the offending images cut by publisher Yale University. “My
book was censored,” Klausen told FoxNews.com. “The issue was that nobody really
understood what the cartoons meant. It was a different dilemma for the media at
the time when they were published. No one was prepared for an international
media landscape and how something like this could have different meanings for
different people. “After that it became a matter of security,” she added. “But
security is often an excuse for censorship.” Pintak, who did not return
requests for comment, vehemently defends his support of press freedom in the
guide, even as he seemingly making the case for censorship. “A commitment to
press freedom is in my blood,” he wrote before adding, “Journalism is not
supposed to be a weapon.” The author also seemingly panders to the Muslim
faith, explaining in the guide that Muhammad is off-limits because “although he
is not divine, he is considered ‘the Perfect Man.’” “By imitating him, “Muslims
hope to acquire his interior attitude—perfect surrender to God," he added,
as if such a deep knowledge of a particular religion is required of
journalists. Pintak did not immediately return a request for comment. But some
experts supported his position. “It is true to a degree. There does need to be
some sense of moderation,” Kevin Smith, ethics chair for the Society of
Professional Journalists, told FoxNews.com. “I do agree that sometimes the way
we may cover a story is to create harm, but sometimes there is help in the
harm.” “We understand that sometimes we have to create harm, but it’s based in
the intentions of bringing an issue to light," he added. "The real
key in ethics is to ask how much can be minimized.”
The Decline and Fall of Islam
Islam is
not the “fastest growing religion in the world”-Christianity is. The Muslim
world is not experiencing a population explosion-in fact-their population is in
a steep decline. Islam is trying to spread into Europe through immigration.
Finally, resistance to the Islamization of Europe is organizing, and Muslims are
still a minority in Europe. Muslims also have their sight focused on America.
While they are making significant inroads into the universities and the
government, America is 1% Muslim and over 75% Christian. Now, I strongly
believe Obama will come out and openly declare himself as a Muslim before he
leaves office-when he does that, he will be declaring the USA a Muslim nation
and “conquered” by Islam. But, that isn’t going to change the religious
demographics of America. So, where are the Muslims going to expand into? They
wanted sub-Saharan Africa-but it has been won by the Gospel. (They also want to
take Western China-which is majority Muslim. If they take that land-they will
only be getting independence for land that is already majority Islam. At the
same time-Christianity is exploding in China proper-or eastern China. Tibet,
Inner Mongolia, Xinjiang (“Chinese Turkestan”-The Uighar lands) are non-Chinese
territories held by the Chinese.) In Nigeria, Muslims are purging Islamic
dominated northern Nigeria of Christians-but they are not changing the
population rates of 50% Muslim and 50% Christian in Nigeria. I read statistics
where Ethiopia and Eritrea are on the verge of becoming a slight majority
Muslim. However this isn’t the case-recent polls show both countries are over
60% Christian. The world is 31.5% Christian and 23.2% Muslim. The number of
Hindus and Buddhists combined is 22.1 % of the world’s population. The world is
not becoming majority Muslim. With their population declining and Christianity
growing-Islam will not be able to dominate the world-as they hope to. Islam is
a political system bent on global domination. And they will never be able to
achieve it. The Muslims need to be expanding into new territory. They looked
upon Central Africa to be fertile territory to spread into. Therefore, the
Saudis financed a Jihad against Christians in Central African Republic. When
Christians were massacred by Muslims in the CAR, the Liberal Democrat News Media
largely ignored the story until Christians organized and began to fight back!
Now, the LDNM is outraged and reporting on the mistreatment of CAR’s Muslims.
The Muslims and the Liberals are in an alliance against Christianity-wherever
it may be. CAR is 80% Christian and 15% Muslim. This was likely a testing
ground to try strategies in other sub-Saharan countries that have similar
demographics-such as Uganda, Kenya, and Tanzania. (Note that Idi Amin was a
Muslim fanatic tyrant in majority Christian Uganda.) Now the Christians of
Central African Republic are ready to fight back against an Islamic attack! So,
the Jihad was a failure and such an attack probably won’t be carried out again.
According to Time magazine “A rebel group called Seleka [Seleka is an Islamic
organization] swept across the country with brutality and established a new
government with a new president. The new president didn’t last long. An
anti-balaka militia organized for protection and retaliation against the Seleka
and have been accused of further brutality. A transitional government has been
established, but it is poor, weak and often overwhelmed. We heard stories that
break your heart. Thousands killed, often with machetes. Widespread rape.
Destruction of homes, shops and villages. There were 36 mosques in Bangui; now
there are seven.” Now the French are in Central African Republic. When the
Muslims were killing Christians-the Europeans were powerless to help. Now that
the roles have been reversed-the Europeans are there fighting against the
Christians on behalf of the Muslims-just as they did in Bosnia and Kosovo.
According to Fox News, on April 21, 2014, at Bangui, Central African Republic – A witness says fighting between a Christian militia and
French soldiers in Central African Republic has left several people dead,
including some who appeared unarmed. Capt. Sebastien Isern, spokesman for the
French forces, said they are conducting regular patrols in the town, which has
seen significant fighting. Isern said they were fired on by an armed group and
returned fire. He did not have a death toll, only saying the group was
"neutralized." Although the Muslim world can seemingly depend on the
West to ignore mass killings of Christians by Muslims-and to intervene on
behalf of Muslims when they are losing-still, Islam is in decline-although most
Muslims don’t realize this yet. It is now demonstrated that Muslims are in a
position of weakness in sub-Saharan Africa. Also, no Muslim country is truly
modern. They are all backwards. With Fracking and the building of the Keystone
Pipeline-which will never happen under Obama-but is inevitable, the USA will
become energy independent and an oil exporter. Muslims have only two things
going for them right now-their zeal and oil wealth. The wealth will soon dry up
and they will come to the realization that decline has fallen upon them-and much
of their zeal will dissipate. Muslim radicals tried to take over Egypt-only to
fail there. Islam is failing world-wide. This means that we shouldn’t be afraid
to confront radical Islam. Despite President Obama’s best efforts-Islam is
losing and in decline. The time has come to stop being afraid and to
confront the problem of Islamism head
on. Now Obama is a big time supporter of radical Islam. But we shouldn’t be
afraid of him either-his approval rate is in the 30s and he is a “lame-duck.”
WND EXCLUSIVE
God and the GOP David Kupelian warns Republicans about those radioactive 'social
issues'
David Kupelian http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/god-and-the-gop/
David Kupelian is an
award-winning journalist, managing editor of WND and editor of Whistleblower
magazine. A widely read online columnist, he is also the best-selling author of
"The
Marketing of Evil"
and "How
Evil Works.".
You think I’m licked.
You all think I’m licked. Well, I’m not licked. And I’m going to stay right
here and fight for this lost cause.” – “Sen. Jefferson Smith” (played by actor James Stewart)
In the classic 1939 Frank Capra film, “Mr. Smith
Goes to Washington,” Jimmy Stewart portrays a lone citizen-legislator who “goes
to Washington” and changes the nation, armed with little more than common
sense, uncommon courage and perfect integrity.
Well, right now – surveying the ongoing
demolition of their beloved nation – Americans are yearning for lots of “Mr.
Smiths” to get elected this November, and then go to Washington and straighten
everything out. (Or at least, the roughly 50 percent of Americans who haven’t
yet been hoodwinked, bribed, brainwashed, dumbed down or drugged are hoping and
praying for such an outcome.)
They want representatives with enough courage,
clarity and moral authority to succeed in reversing Obama’s “fundamental
transformation of America” and igniting a mass awakening – a prairie fire of
truth and freedom that spreads over the whole land.
Hold that thought, please.
At the very same time, however, we’re being told
by Republicans across the board – that is, by the moneyed GOP establishment, by
Republican advisers and strategists, and by calculating moderates comfortably
nestled in Washington’s elite society, but also by “libertarian-leaning
conservatives” and even by many tea-party spokesmen – that the key to victory
is to keep away from those divisive “social issues” that alienate voters.
Indeed, this is one point on which many Republicans across the spectrum appear
to agree.
May I ask a question?
Where do we suppose this superhuman “Mr.
Smith”-type bravery comes from – the uncommon, almost mythic, otherworldly
quality we want our elected leaders to possess, which will mysteriously empower
them to do battle like Saint George against the all-consuming, fire-breathing
Beltway Beast?
Before we answer that, let’s get one fact
clearly in mind: America is at war – within her own borders.
Arrayed on one side are the forces for limited,
constitutional government, unfettered free-market capitalism, and traditional
Judeo-Christian morality; those who desire freedom to succeed or fail, who know
that as government enlarges, liberty diminishes, and who believe American
exceptionalism – Reagan’s “shining city on a hill” – ultimately is rooted in,
and dependent upon, self-governing, self-disciplined, moral and religious
citizens.
On the other side are all the people who
consider the first group to be unfair, unjust, unfeeling, unrealistic, greedy,
selfish, intolerant, racist, parasitic, predatory and probably evil. And it is
this side – so full of perceived grievances against the first – that currently
dominates American government, media, education and culture.
In this war, our elected representatives –
congressmen and senators – are supposed to be our champions, fighting on our
behalf in the D.C. arena. We send them to Washington not to become members of
an elite, permanent, bipartisan country club, nor to particularly enjoy
themselves, enrich themselves or build careers and fortunes for themselves.
Like our soldiers and officer class, we raise them up to do battle on our
behalf – period. To help bolster and guide them on the right path, and to
enable us to better hold them accountable, we have them swear a sacred oath to
uphold the rulebook we wrote for governing them, the Constitution.
For conservatives, the battle is brutal right
now, as the other side pretty much owns the government and the major media.
Yet, with so much at stake, conservatives must don their armor and helmets,
wield their swords and shields and head back into battle.
But what should be their strategy? Many people
are currently weighing in on that question.
Secret of the Reagan
Revolution
My friend, Sean Hannity, often points out that
Republicans cannot simply stand back passively and wait for the Obama agenda
(especially Obamacare) to implode and hope the electorate then enthusiastically
sweeps the GOP into power. Rather, Republicans must formulate – and shout from
every rooftop – a powerful and positive vision of exactly where they want to
take America and how they plan to do it.
1) Cut a penny from every dollar the government
spends for six years, which he says will produce a balanced budget.
2) Pass a balanced-budget amendment.
3) Limit the amount of taxes that the government can collect.
4) Encourage home-grown energy resources.
5) Replace Obamacare with health-care savings accounts so people can use the money to buy their own insurance in the private market.
6) Enact term limits: six years in the House, with only one term in leadership, and 12 years in the Senate with only two years in leadership.
7) Allow school choice.
8) Secure the borders.
2) Pass a balanced-budget amendment.
3) Limit the amount of taxes that the government can collect.
4) Encourage home-grown energy resources.
5) Replace Obamacare with health-care savings accounts so people can use the money to buy their own insurance in the private market.
6) Enact term limits: six years in the House, with only one term in leadership, and 12 years in the Senate with only two years in leadership.
7) Allow school choice.
8) Secure the borders.
OK, great policy prescriptions – but what about
tactics for implementing them in an exceedingly hostile political and media
environment?
In his new book, “Rules for Patriots: How Conservatives Can Win Again,” radio talker Steve Deace lays out his battle
plan, explaining his “10 Commandments of Political Warfare”:
1) Never trust Republicrats.
2) Never attack what you’re not willing to kill.
3) Never accept the premise of your opponent’s argument.
4) Never surrender the moral high ground.
5) Reverse the premise of your opponent’s argument, and use it against him.
6) Never abandon your base (unless they are morally wrong).
7) Define your opponent before they define themselves, and define yourself before your opponent defines you.
8) Always make your opponent defend their record/belief system.
9) Stay on message.
10) Play offense.
2) Never attack what you’re not willing to kill.
3) Never accept the premise of your opponent’s argument.
4) Never surrender the moral high ground.
5) Reverse the premise of your opponent’s argument, and use it against him.
6) Never abandon your base (unless they are morally wrong).
7) Define your opponent before they define themselves, and define yourself before your opponent defines you.
8) Always make your opponent defend their record/belief system.
9) Stay on message.
10) Play offense.
This is all great stuff. Compelling and positive
vision. Aggressive and effective tactics. All in all, a great, reality-based
war strategy for taking America back.
Just one thing, though.
To champion a bold yet common-sense vision like
Hannity’s, and to pursue it aggressively and with tactical intelligence, as
Deace prescribes, requires real courage and integrity – including a willingness
to suffer deprivation and defamation, to be “persecuted for righteousness’
sake,” to be hurt financially, reputationally, professionally and perhaps
worse.
Now to our question: Where will such
transcendent courage and integrity come from?
Clearly, they come from within – from God – from
our commitment to something higher and more important and precious than just
our own lives.
Which brings us to the dreaded “social issues” –
issues that revolve around morality and transcendent values, marriage and
family, faith and freedom – you know, the kinds of things that define and
determine the very fabric of our civilization.
Here’s a memo to all those brilliant Republican
strategists who say they want to re-elect another Reagan in 2016, but advise
that we ditch those divisive “social issues”:
Fact: The ground troops that got Ronald Reagan
elected in 1980 and ‘84 were largely evangelical Christian, pro-life Americans.
Roe v. Wade had been imposed on all the states just a few years earlier (in
1973), and the Democratic Party had become stridently pro-abortion. In fact, in
1984, both Walter Mondale and his running mate, Geraldine Ferraro, were
hardcore, outspoken “pro-choicers.”
During the ‘80s, the people who registered
others to vote, stuffed envelopes, held coffee clutches in their homes,
canvassed door to door, made endless phone calls, worked the long hours, drove
little old ladies to their polling places on Election Day – in other words, the
tireless ground forces in the war, and the beating heart of the Reagan
Revolution – were Bible-believing evangelicals and pro-life Catholics! Indeed,
Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority is credited with having registered millions of evangelicals to vote during the Reagan ‘80s.
The people who got Reagan elected were not those who, first and foremost, were angry over
Jimmy Carter’s high inflation and unemployment rates (the highest “misery
index” in U.S. history), or even over his dangerously inept and appeasing
foreign policy. Yes, those people voted for Reagan, but the volunteer soldiers – the people who actually
propelled him to sweeping electoral victories – were those who didn’t want to
see innocent babies slaughtered, ripped apart limb from limb or chemically
burned alive. These were the life-and-death people – marching off to war to
rescue the innocent, to save lives and redeem their country from the moral
hellfire into which it was rapidly plunging.
Today, with abortion still
taking as many American lives daily as died in the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, with Kermit Gosnell-like criminal atrocities occurring all over
the country in late-term abortion
clinics, and reports like the recent one in the London Telegraph revealing that hospitals have been incinerating
aborted babies to heat their facilities, the Republican Party is being advised
to pretend this issue doesn’t exist?
‘Ruled by tyrants’
Excuse my contrarian streak, but now I’m going
to dive with both feet into the other big “social issue,” and the one Republicans
are most often warned to stay away from – the “gay” issue. While conservatives
claim they want to reverse America’s progressive transformation under Barack
Obama, most are too intimidated to talk about the most toxic, far-reaching and
irreversible part of that transformation.That’s ironic, considering the recent
ouster of tech prodigy Brendan Eich as CEO of Mozilla, a company he co-founded,
simply because he donated money to help preserve traditional marriage. The
event was so chilling and over-the-top that it has been universally condemned
by both right (Newt Gingrich called it the “new fascism,” Charles Krauthammer
called it “totalitarian”) and left (Bill Maher called it the “gay mafia”) and
even by well-known gays (Andrew Sullivan said it “disgusts me,” Tammy Bruce
blamed the “gay gestapo”).
And yet this is the issue we’re not supposed to discuss, let alone oppose?
Consider this: Before the 2008 presidential
election, Sen. Barack Obama said: “I do not support gay marriage. Marriage has
religious and social connotations, and I consider marriage to be between a man
and a woman.”
Likewise, pre-2008 Hillary Clinton was on record
saying: “Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes
back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage always
has been, between a man and a woman.”
That’s because, just a few short years ago,
supporting homosexual marriage was considered such a deranged, perverse,
off-the-charts position that even Obama and Hillary – both Alinskyite progressives
and long-time gay-rights supporters – saw the need to publicly voice opposition
to same-sex marriage.
As everyone knows, both of them did
whiplash-inducing about-faces. (Their positions had “evolved,” they said.) But
now watch the surprise twist in this story:
Two years after Obama’s election, by mid-2010,
the traditional party roles had reversed and, as the homosexual newspaper the
Washington Blade put it, conservatives
had “taken the leadership role in achieving marriage equality.”
That’s right. Not only had high-profile
personalities like Glenn Beck, Elisabeth Hasselbeck, Laura Bush, Dick Cheney
and others publicly come around to endorsing same-sex marriage, but some on the
right were actually leading the charge.
Case in point: George W. Bush’s solicitor
general, Ted Olson, dedicated his time as one of the two lead attorneys who
successfully challenged California’s Proposition 8, which had enshrined in the
state’s constitution marriage as being solely between a man and a woman.
Indeed, proclaimed the Blade, when it came to
the battle to legalize same-sex marriage, it was conservatives who “have
achieved the most important success so far as they are the most willing and
most able to take the case to the Supreme Court.”
Margaret Hoover, long a Fox News contributor and
Republican pundit, explained her enthusiastic support for “gay marriage,”
saying, “Discrimination is deeply un-American. When the government sanctions
discrimination against a group of citizens, it gives permission for other
citizens to do the same. This isn’t a partisan issue.”
And S.E. Cupp, a popular young conservative
columnist and television personality, said, “Conservatism and gay rights are
actually natural allies. Conservatism rightly seeks to keep the government out
of our private lives, and when you strip away the politics of pop culture, it’s
this assertion of privacy and freedom that the gay rights movement is
essentially making.”
Actually, S.E., that’s libertarianism you’re talking about. Conservatism – at least,
the kind America and Western civilization were actually built on – is something
entirely different.
Let’s take a look.
In fact, how about, just for a moment, we set
aside all of the various reasons for and against same-sex marriage. Instead,
let’s clear the air and focus on something even more basic – but which many of
us somehow never seem to consider.
Dennis Prager, the respected Jewish talk host
and author, explains it very well, so I will quote from his award-winning
article, “Why Judaism rejected homosexuality.” Prager folds the petals back to
unveil the very heart of the flower of Judeo-Christian civilization:
When Judaism demanded
that all sexual activity be channeled into marriage, it changed the world.
It is not overstated to say that the Torah’s
prohibition of non-marital sex made the creation of Western civilization
possible. Societies that did not place boundaries around sexuality were stymied
in their development. The subsequent dominance of the Western world can largely
be attributed to the sexual revolution initiated by Judaism, and later carried
forward by Christianity.
The revolution consisted of forcing the sexual
genie into the marital bottle. It ensured that sex no longer dominated society,
heightened male-female love and sexuality (and thereby almost alone created the
possibility of love and eroticism within marriage), and began the arduous task
of elevating the status of women.
By contrast, throughout
the ancient world, and up to the recent past in many parts of the world,
sexuality infused virtually all of society. Human sexuality, especially male
sexuality, is utterly wild. Men have had sex with women and with men; with
little girls and young boys; with a single partner and in large groups; with
total strangers and immediate family members; and with a variety of
domesticated animals. There is little, animate or inanimate, that has not
excited some men sexually. …
Prager goes on at length to catalog the “wild”
sexuality of the non-Judeo-Christian world, and shows, region by region, how
the almost ubiquitous perversity and wanton sexuality, including homosexuality
and sex with children, that has dominated most of the world throughout history
– and which continues to this day in some areas – has served to degrade,
subjugate and enslave entire cultures.
Judaism, he explains, and later Christianity,
“placed controls on sexual activity. It could no longer dominate religion and
social life. It was to be sanctified – which in Hebrew means ‘separated’ – from
the world and placed in the home, in the bed of husband and wife.”
In short, he explains, “Judaism’s restricting
of sexual behavior was one of the essential elements that enabled society to
progress. Along with ethical monotheism, the revolution begun by the Torah when
it declared war on the sexual practices of the world wrought the most
far-reaching changes in history.”
In other words, our sexual mores in large part
determine our society’s character and destiny.
Now, fast-forward to America’s founding: It’s no
accident that this nation has flowered more than any other in history. But that
didn’t happen, my dear “libertarian-leaning conservative” friends and “social
issues-avoiding Republicans,” because the founding generation simply resented
government, wanted lower taxes and desired to be left alone.
No, America flowered because it was steeped in a
faith-based morality and a love of freedom that were wedded together into a
rare and priceless alloy the world had never seen.
This is what Alexis de Tocqueville, the famed
French political philosopher, found when he toured America during the early
19th century when the republic was young and vibrant – and not yet infested
with “progressive” termites boring away at our institutions and faith. In
“Democracy in America,” published in 1835, Tocqueville described with admiration
and astonishment what he observed during his travels here:
The Americans combine the notions of
Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible
to make them conceive the one without the other … Upon my arrival in the United
States, the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my
attention; and the longer I stayed there, the more did I perceive the great
political consequences resulting from this state of things, to which I was
unaccustomed. In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the
spirit of freedom pursuing courses diametrically opposed to each other; but in
America I found that they were intimately united, and that they reigned in
common over the same country.
If America’s unique magic was combining “the
notions of Christianity and of liberty” to produce the greatest nation in
history, today’s libertarian-conservatives seem to have lost sight of half of
that winning combination – the God part – vainly imagining that freedom alone
is the answer.
Yet the libertarian utopia – live any way you
want, including doing drugs, having abortions or frequenting prostitutes (all
three of which the Libertarian Party wants legalized), and yet somehow we can
still manage to be citizen-sovereigns ruling over a small, responsible
government – is every bit as absurd, illusory and impossible as the utopia
socialists forever dream of. Neither has ever existed, at any time or place,
nor ever will. For as we all know deep down, there is no lasting freedom
without adherence to, as Thomas Jefferson put it, “the Laws of Nature and of
Nature’s God.” Or as William Penn warned, “If man is not governed by God, he
will be ruled by tyrants.”
Thus, in today’s grand morphing of Reagan
pro-life, pro-biblical-morality conservatism into libertarianism, we simply kid
ourselves into thinking an immoral society can ever be free.
So, for the Republican Party – whose platform is
rooted in the traditional, Judeo-Christian values and sensibilities that
created, nurtured and protected Western Civilization – to now say, “We need to
declare a truce on these divisive ‘social issues’ so we can regain power,” is
folly.
Obviously, there’s a big difference between
abject surrender on the “moral” issues of our time, versus a tactical
determination that it’s better to deal with certain issues after the 2014
midterm elections. The problem is, many Republicans and even self-identified
“conservatives” have already publicly surrendered to the radical LGBT agenda,
including same-sex marriage, not realizing perhaps that the unintended
consequences threaten to change America more profoundly and negatively than
anything else in this age of “fundamental transformation.”
Remember how Reagan famously spoke of the
“three-legged stool” underpinning successful conservatism – strong defenses,
unfettered free-market economic policies and strong adherence to traditional
moral values (“social issues”)? Of course, the point of his metaphor was that
the stool could remain upright only if supported by all three legs. Just two
(it doesn’t matter which two) would never work.
The bottom line: To elect representatives who
will fight and prevail against the godless progressive juggernaut – to send
real-life “Mr. Smiths” to Washington – you need men and women whose hearts and
souls are burning with the love of the Living God and His Laws. People for whom
the biblical words of Joshua – “Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid,
neither be thou dismayed: for the LORD thy God is with thee whithersoever thou
goest” – course through their
bloodstream.
And guess what? Those are the very same people
who are passionate about the moral issues that define the soul of America and
the happiness and well-being of future generations.
I’ll give Dennis Prager the last word about that
third leg of Reagan’s three-legged stool: “The bedrock of this civilization …
has been the centrality and purity of family life. But the family is not a
natural unit so much as it is a value that must be cultivated and protected.
The Greeks assaulted the family in the name of beauty and Eros. The Marxists
assaulted the family in the name of progress. And today, gay liberation
assaults it in the name of compassion and equality. I understand why gays would
do this. Life has been miserable for many of them. What I have not understood
was why Jews or Christians would join the assault. I do now. They do not know
what is at stake. At stake is our civilization.”
The preceding article is excerpted from the April 2014 issue of
Whistleblower magazine, titled “THE WAR FOR THE GOP: How conservatives plan to take over
the Republican Party and stop the Obama juggernaut.”
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/god-and-the-gop/#Djj82kx0vZjTEWck.99
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/god-and-the-gop/#Djj82kx0vZjTEWck.99
No comments:
Post a Comment